DURABILITY or MORTAR AND MASONRY Factors Influencing Mertar Durability Durability Experience with Mortars ROUERT S, BOYNTON KENNETH A, GUTSCHICK = NATIONAL LIME ASSOCIATION,Preface Over the years considerable research has been conducted on masonry mortar, some of which has been obscure or forgotten . .. and much of it contradictory in its conclusions and/or interpretation of the findings and there is often disagreement among the researchers on the significance of tests, ete. Yet. preponderant or majority opinions on. this collective research is often possible to glean. To this end the National Lime Association's staf has made a study of what appears to be the most significant research in the mortar field. ‘The results of this study are being summarized in a series of articles categorized into the principal properties and considerations of mortar, such as durability, efflorescence, bond, volume change, strength, and workability, along with selected bibliographies. The first of this series of consolidated research digests is Mortar Durability. ‘One inescapable general conclusion from this study is that an over- whelming majority opinion among the independent auchorities con- sistently substantiated the need for both lime and portland cement a well balanced, all-purpose mortar. ‘The lime referred to is either hydrated lime or lime putty made from quicklime and may be either dolomitic or high calcium types. This should never be confused with pulverized limestone (calcium carbonate) that is sometimes erroneously called “lime”, and which is inert in mortar and has none of the prop- erties inherent with burned lime products. So, whether a conventional lime-cement mortar or a prepared one-bag mortar is used. be sure the mortar contains a bonafide lime that meets ASTM Specification G 207— and enough of itDurability of Mortar Durability refers to che ability of a structure 10 maimain substantially its original appearance, strength, and soundness for many years. Int masonry the two prime requisites for durability are a dimen: sionally stable unit and a mortar that forms a permanent and complete bond, thereby making the stracture wacertight. Jn recent years some engineers have erroncously autempter! to correlate “durability” of masonry to laboratory cycles of freezing and thawing. Hf the mortar disineegrates in a few cyeles, they declare it Tacks durability. In general, limecement_ mortars that do not comain air entrainment are in this category. Sach proponents either overlook or un- fairly minimize the centuries oid successful durabit- ity experience of Time based mortars, “Father Time” is obviously a much more realistic measure of per formance than artificial, accelerated laboratory tests ‘The subject of durability in mortars embraces the following incerrclated considerations’ Enpiricai- based solely on history, observation and experience with mortars ‘Statisticai—also empirical but based on a statis tical analysis of the mortar practices that have been both successful and unsuccessful. “Autagenous healing—the ability of a mortar to reknit of Yeconstituce itself after cracking or in filling up original mortar voids “Eforescencehow the permanent forms of efflor scence contribuce to mortar and masonry disinte- gration. ‘Air contetit—the effect of entrained air in improv- ing the weatherability of mortars. Effect of freesing—its effect on mortars. Pormeabitityabsorption of moisture through pores in mortar and units and by leaks through Voids and cracks in mortar joints ‘A selected bibliography covering the principal researchers and authorities in these various aspects of mortar durability is included. Empivical—Lime's long history in mortar dating back to antiquity is practically axiomatic. Surpri ingly, many of these ancient mortars were made with, the crudest types of lime (that could not possibly meet present day lime specifications) and with dirty, poorly graded sand; and they were poorly mixed Tn the United States straight lime-sand mortar prevailed until about 1890, when portland cement became commercially available ia quantities. (See Fig. L} Some of the limes were quite impure, ep proxinating hydraulic limes in their reaction; and the sands of this peviod were generally unwashed, containing clay loam that reacted with ilte {vec Lime, Jending possibly @ faint porzolanic effect to che mortar” However, regardless of the purity of the lime or quality of he sand, these mortars were uniformly of a low strength as compared to modern ‘moriars. Generally they were used to “bed” the masonry units, with the result that the mortar joints were much thinner chan in modern masonry. This helped to compensate for the seeming lack of com: pressive strength, but most important the mortar developed @ tenacious boad at the morcar-unit interfeee dlue to intimate contact, “The upshot was tficn a hundred years of more of water resistant masonry and remarkable longevity records without tuckpointing, Visualize the widespread slum dearance and urban modernization construction programs that have prevailed in most U.S. cities since World War TL. Countless of these old masonry buildings have been leveled to make space for freeways, slum clear- ance programs, and modern buildings. Although 1 Massachutects Mall, Harvard University, built Toit staighs Time mortar, has never been cuckpointed.many of these old buildings were hopelessly anti quated and obsolescent in layout, generally the masonry was still sound an! watercight. When these yall structares were knocked! down by the drop ball, the mortar almost invariably rupuared in the middle of the joint instead of at the mortat-unit interface, indicating a strong, adhesive bond. A learned exposé on masonry and mortars of yesteryear was a suudy by the Swedish scientist. Kreuger, whieh was translated into Foglish and discussed in a formal paper by Palmer. Kreuger was not just interested that buildings 100-800 years ‘old were still standing in well-preserved condition, but also in analyzing why this occurred. He pointed ‘out (as other writers have} that too often the tuck- pointing of joints with dense cement mortar of some century-old buildings may only endure for 5- 18 years in contrast to 50-50 years of Tife for the old porons lime mortar. He observed that the porous mortars andl units tend to dey out rapidly after soaking rain, By drying out, they are less prone to freeze, Hie noted that the more porous, weaker mortars were less subject co volume change and shrinkage cracking: that dense mortars tend. to expand on wetting, narrowing openings of srink- age cracks, thereby impeding drying, The retained ‘moisture in the wall is then a vehicle for internal clorescense to develop, which causes disintegration and decay of mortar joints and induces spalling of units In modera day wackpointing, Newman, for 45 years a specialist in the restoration of old masonry structures, concludes similarly to Kreuger, although he expresses his opinion in a less academic but more practical manner. (See Fig 2} Regarding Kreuger's, and other British studies, Palmer states: “After 10 years of research in the field of unit masonry prob- lems, the writer (Palmer) concludes that (they) have hewed to the line, and his own conclusions, reached by a different approach (laboratory) to the problem, are in good agreement with theirs.” Voss was substantiatly in accord with these views and impressed with the empirical evaluation of mortars. He frequently pointed out that portland cement lacked this old history. Both Voss and Palmer fele that the empirical approach to mortar durability is of the greatest significance—fat more so than accelerated laboratory tests Stotistical—Another empirical but statistical study vwas conducted by Connor, who examined 100 build- ings of his company's properties (New Jerscy Bell ‘Telephone Company} that were six to 23 yeas old These buildings were laid with nine different mortars of varying lime-cement ratios, straight Fe. 2. Stanley Newman examining otiginal lime momar 2¢ Marsichusetts Hall, alter 240 years of exposure in severe New England climate. cement, and masonry cement branils and 55 differ- ‘ene makes of brick of widely divergent degrees of moisture absorption. Fifty-two of the buildings were watertight, The four factors he found almost invariably present with the watertight buildings 1. Use of lime-cement mortars of 1:5 of 1:1:6 2. Protected coverings for parapet walls 3. Use of moderate absorption brick 4. Concave tooled joints Statistically the masonry cement and high cement mortars did not measure up to the 1:1:6 mortar. Leakage occurred mainly as a result of shrinkage separation cracking at the mortarsunit interface— a failure of che mortar bond. Cracking in some cases led to mortar disintegration, necessitating tuckpointing. Autogenous HeatingThe phenomenon of high lime mortar Raving the capacity to reconstitute (reknit) slight cracks or small voiels in mortar was researched and reported by Voss. Microscopic thin sections of mortar were offered as praof that mortar reconstitution can be achieved slowly over a period of time as seen in Figs. § and 4. Rainwater is absorbed into the mortar, dissolving minuceFh. 3, Photomicrograph of joint interface of dense brick and high cement morear, 2 years old (magosteation 60 times, [Note thar the loa is not continous Fic. 4. Photomicrograph of joint interlace of moderately dense Dick and high Tiove mortar, 4 years o}4, Note chat ie mortar har created a continuous bond. ‘The filing of the ‘izegular cavity & an example of the auo eeu lcaling characteristic of a high lime mortar. amounts of uncombined lime (calcium hydroxide) which penetrates into the crack or void and soon carbonates and precipitates, thereby filling or plug- ging the interstices. ‘This is demonstrated by the following chemical equation: Ca(OH), + HO + CO, + CaCO, + 2H,0 (Hyd. Lime) + (water) + (carb. dioxide) (cal. carbonate + (water) Such reconstitution might occur with haitline, cracks, caused by deflection or settlement, located within the mortar. . . or it might gradually fll minute voids ar occlusions at the mortar interface, sing the intimacy and extent of thereby inci bond. ‘Voss claims this phenomenon is only likely occur with high lime mortars since high cement mortars have so much less lime for dissolution. Be: cause calcium hydroxide has such faint solubility, this reaction can only occur slowly—in months or years, depending upon the size of the crack or void, climatic conditions, etc. Cold, rainy weather inter spersed with warn, dry spells will stimulate this reaction since solubility of lime increases as the temperature decreases. Solubility is further cata lyzed by the presence of CO,, Effiovescence—According to Palmer and Newnan, the most pernicious type of efflorescence is the per manent type that initially is often not seen, since is develops in the interior of = walk, This cype is most prevalent with dense mortar and masonry units in which the bond has broken at the mortar interface. Rain easily penetrates through the cracks, but after saturation, this masonry resists drying since water is trapped and cannot evaporate as readily as it can through the pores of porous ma- sonry materials, This retained moisture dissolves and ateracts soluble alkali sulfates which tend to collect in these damp areas, The salts eventually work out to the masonry face, but also hasten the decomposition of the mortar that is alteady weak. ened by shrinkage cracks. Newman claims the porous masonry materials can “breathe” and by drying out, this disruptive form of eflorescence does not develop. Porous masonty materials are char acterized by absorptive types of brick, concrete block, and high lime mortars. Air Conient—Ic has been proven conclusively that additions of small amounts of entrained air to con- ‘qete improve weatherability and durability. Most masonry cements contain ait cntraining agents in varying amounts to provide mortar plasticity. Those producers who add no lime to their prepared mor- tars generally use the highest air contents in order to obtain workability, but in so doing the air con- tent is excessive-as high as 259. Zemaitis claims vastly superior durability for masonry cements having high air contents over lime-cement mortars ‘with Little or no air. His research is solely based on accelerated laboratory tests of 2 x in. mortar cubes subjected t0 repeated cycles of both wetting and drying and freezing and thawing, In effect, the ime-cement mortars started disintegrating after a few cycles, whereas some of the masonry cement mortars went over 100 cycles without distress. Be-cause of this research, Zemaitis andl some cement producers claimed dtr Timeement mortars or motiars sithout air are unsafe co use in cold eli mites, completely ignoring lime’s centuries of suc cessful use. Ih is true that lime-based mortars with- font air may crode slightly over a long petiod of sime, but this does nor affect its tight Bond, so dhe walls remain sour and watertight. Palmer, as tong ago as the early 30°s completely discredited this same accelerated mortar wst, claim: ing it was misleading and unrealistic. He con- tended, in fact, that the most frost tesistant mater: als are nsually che most dense, but shat they cend to remain excesively wet in the wall. He daims ‘che most weather-resistant wall is one chat remains relatively dry even though the macerials composing. it have poor records in laboratory freezing and thawing tests ceded the advent of air entrainment in concrete and mortar. Palmer and Voss wete more concerned with watertight masonry than with the weathering of joints. ‘The Zemaitis theory has been attacked by other independent groups, itke Structural Clay Produets Institute and National Concrete Masonry Associa: tion, First, what good is improved weatherability if the mortar develops a poor extent of bond that shrinks and cracks? Second they are adamant that there should be limitations on the maximum, amount of air permitted, such as 10-15% air. In re- inforeed masonry and in high level apartment ‘buildings, they want less air than this and are recommending only limecement mortars for such purposes, The Swedes, who were pioneers in the ‘use of air entrainment, favor lower percentages of air than that used in most American masonry cements—15% maximum; and some Swedish au- thorities, like Rune Hedin, internationally known cement and lime technologist. favor a maximum of 5-6. Hedin claims that this small amount of air is ample for improving weatherability and is nec high enough to impair bond strength. “Thus, the current trend is for lower air contents, but there seems 10 be no doubt that 2 small amount of air enhances mortar weatherability (probably in che 5.10% range). Above this air content, durability will be increasingly adversely affected by poor extent of bond due 10 the myriad of microscopic air bubbles at the interface chat interferes with intimacy of bond. This sinall amoune of air can readily be ob: tained in lime-cement mortars by the vse of either an air-entrained portland cement or hydrated lime. Effect of Freezing Authorities agree that masonry However, Palmer's comments pre- rately freezes, regardless of climatic conditions and pes of units and mortar used. For freering © commence the masonry assemblage would have to become sanuated, a condition that is vitwally ine posible, even with the most dense units and mortars which have the lowese moisture absorption capacity. A high lime mortar (1) has a porosity of $0 10 85%, about 50% higher than a straight cement mnortst. It is doubtful that the latter would ever hecome saturated even in a bard driving rain, amuch less the high Jime mortar. ‘This fact makes the accelerated Iuhoratory freeze-thaw test on set rated mortay cubes meaningless The test is also unrealistic since the cubes are froven from six divections simultancously, whereas freezing of @ wall would be unidirectional only. In the later case, as the ice forms, the expansion would couse the water to move inward toward the warm side of the structnre, but no damaging pres- sure would be created since the resistance (0 flow of water in a porous mortar is elatively low, With mortar cubes, on the other hand, great internal pressures are built up as che ice front moves inward from all six sides. ‘Thus, the analogy between 2 frecting saturated mortar eube and a monolithic wall structure is ridiewlous Permeability—There seems to be considerable dis agreement among the researchers on the effect of porosity and permeability on watertightness of ma- sony walls, Voss, Palmer and Newman prefer the more porous masonry materials and discount their greater moisture absorption, mainly because they diry out so rapidly. They feel the principal criteria for watertightness are good bend and lack af sepa ration cracks, but not permeability McBurney, on the other hand, reported that 2 brick panel made with dense brick laid in dense mortar (1:14:8) was dhe most impervious to water penetration. He also found out that the quality of brick, based on the degree of absorption, had a greater bearing on permeability of masonry chan mortar, He further reported that permeability of masonry increased with increased) Yime content. Wetting of absorptive brick before Taying reduced vwater penetration and. permitted successful ase of dense mortar (good bond reported). Anderegg found that masonty durability and imperviousness ‘was enhanced by brick of medium water absorption; his comments on mortar were inconclusive, Connor empirically agreed with Anderegg on moderate absorptive brick. Ritchie's views tend t@ be nearer Voss and Palmer. He found in testing brick panels thar theamount of moisture penetration was less with 1:16 and high lime mostats as against high cement oF musonry cement mortars He atuibutes this to tighter joints andl better extent of bond. However, in panels made with conerete masonry, the advan- tage of high lime mortars was not evident: generally the influence of different mortars with the masonry on permeability was inconclusive. Conelusion—Based on the extensive background, of esearch and experience, it canbe concluded that the use of lime in mortar contributes to water tight walls and durable masonry structures. Bibliography 1.F. ©. Andetegg, “Elect of Brick Absorption Characters ties upon Mortar Properties", Proc. ASTM. 1942 2 GG Connor, “Factors in the Resistance of Brick Masonry Walle to Moisture Penctration", Proc. ASTM. 1948 3. FL Reeuger, (Sweden), Trans. Royal Swedish tastiute for Seitnd. Research #26 (1998): translated into English by ASTM. in 1997 and discussed by L. A. Palmer in “What Europe Knows about he Weather Resistance of Masonry” To Am. Cer, Sor, Vol. 18, Dec, 1984 4. J. W. MeBumey, et aly “Permeability of Brick Mortar Assemblages”, Proc, ASTM, 1906, 5. Stanley Newman, “Give Walls Aie and Save Reps” Bhilding Coaserucion Wuserated, May, 1960, 6. L. A. Palmer, "Mortars Suitable frm the Standpoint of Watertighinese ie Cait Masonry”, J. Am. Cer. Soe, AU, 1988 1. T. Ritchie and W. G. Plewet, “Moisture Penetration of BAL Masonry Paste, ASTM. Bolletin, October, 1950, EW, © Wass, “Exterior Masoney Consteuction”, Mullen 384, National Lime Aswocation, 1960, 9, WG Vass, “Why Masonry Walls Leak", {Leetuse pub lished by National Lime Assonation, 1858), WW. L, Lemaitis, "Facovs Allecting Performance of Unit Masonry Mortar’, J, Am. Cone Inst, Dee. 3959,